As one of the very first people to join this forum, I always enjoyed the ability to "one stop shop" by logging in to Diehards.org. To quote Mel, I saw "Diehards to the left, and Diehards to the right." The forums were a little different, but I read and posted to both forums interchangably.

Today, I logged on and saw that M* has been eliminated from the opening page. Out of curiousity, can anyone explain why this decision was made, or who made it?

Petrocelli wrote:As one of the very first people to join this forum, I always enjoyed the ability to "one stop shop" by logging in to Diehards.org. To quote Mel, I saw "Diehards to the left, and Diehards to the right." The forums were a little different, but I read and posted to both forums interchangably.

Today, I logged on and saw that M* has been eliminated from the opening page. Out of curiousity, can anyone explain why this decision was made, or who made it?

I was sure that you will be the first to comment !

I guess the M* forum was not very diehardish lately although I liked reading the title of your posts for entertainment value.

Petrocelli: I wouldn't do that. I won't complain but praise the changes. We now have an one page opener with the ability to go where-ever your interests direct. You can click on Boglehead Forum, latest, 1,2,3,7 days and up it pops. Or to one of the resources; or to A Quick Links; View Your Posts, Vanguard Log in, M*Portfolio Mgr. and it right there.

And for you just click on Original M* Portfolio Forum. Did You click before you raved?

I think the page and the creators should be praised. My only suggestion would be more use of black print. It is easier on my eyes, but there are many other eyes looking and I understand that also.

Murfield

"Nobody wants to have in his cash holdings a definite number of pieces of money; he wants to keep a cash holdings of a definite amount of purchasing power"

mlebuf wrote:The fat lady is warming up at the old M* site. Will the last Boglehead to leave please turn out the lights?

Michael - I'm a Boglehead and believe that isolationism is not smart policy. Is everyone here willing to give up on that site? Never mind. I think I know the answer. Truely sad IMO. No comments requested.

Several factors contributed to the remake of the homepage and elimination of the M* post links (there is still a link to the Vanguard Diehards forum homepage in the left column), but the primary one is that the content of the few remaining M* posts no longer justified 50% of the space on the forum homepage. The new interface allows us to nearly double the number of posts that can be seen without scrolling while also providing a set of links to content both on and off this site that better serve our members than the small number of helpful posts on M*.

Other factors that went into the decision include a desire to reduce confusion and present a cleaner and more consistent interface now that the site consists of more than just the forum and an attempt to increase performance by discontinuing the large amounts of processing that is necessary to extract and index the M* listings.

The Advisory Panel in general and Taylor and Mel in particular all agreed to these changes before Larry and I undertook the project.

Last edited by Alex Frakt on Sat May 31, 2008 6:28 pm, edited 1 time in total.

mlebuf wrote:The fat lady is warming up at the old M* site. Will the last Boglehead to leave please turn out the lights?

Michael - I'm a Boglehead and believe that isolationism is not smart policy. Is everyone here willing to give up on that site? Never mind. I think I know the answer. Truely sad IMO. No comments requested.

Jerry

Interesting how perspectives do color what we see... I see this as definitely 'glass half full' in terms of the very amicable creation of the two forums, the genial co-existence, and now the totally inevitable continued stratification towards the unique audiences that visit each site.

I don't know that such a unique and co-supportive 'split' has ever happened in the history of the internet -- usually there is much gnashing of teeth and castigation when a split or splintering occurs.

Mel and Taylor,
You two were among the first to be a part of the M* Diehards. I came in just a few months later than you.. Why did you agree to stop the link.? I HATE THE CHANGE. Okay, I am screaming.

I would have liked to have had an advance notice of this. But, who am I? Just someone who has been around here for almost 10 years. Yes, I had a different monicre over there. I changed to Sheepdog only for security.

Yes, I know, this is not a democratic forum.,.......,,,.....
Jim

“I fear the day technology will surpass our human interaction. The world will have a generation of idiots.” | ― Albert Einstein

1. Having M* on the other side of the screen was an efficient use of space, i.e. you could see titles on both sides of the screen. Now there's nothing on the other side - how is that more efficient? I certainly don't need distracting bright red reminders of how old a thread is more than I need a few more topics covered.

2. There's a huge banner ugly banner on top, tribute to Bogle or no. The name of the site should be plenty. The compass icon was nice too.

3. The top 1/4 of my screen is taken up with links for newbies. The site is for the ongoing members, remember, not the newbies? A simple line like "New around here, follow this link for FAQs, search, etc" would be sufficient. Show me the new posts - that's why I came here.

4. The left 1/4 of my screen is taken up with more links, most of which I won't use regularly. I'm willing to make one extra click to get to search, forum policies (read pretty much never by anyone anyway), or whatnot.

In short, I don't agree with axing the old M* link, but the new layout is awful! You claim the old M* doesn't justify taking up space on diehards.org, and yet you replace it with nothing! Someone hire a decent layout designer around here, or are you waiting for some tech-savvy Diehard to build it for you? At the very least, double-column the Bogleheads listing of new posts.

In addition, you could have left the old 2-page version (Bogle+M*) available as a link - it doesn't cost you anything and I imagine many people including myself prefer it. If you want a new front page offer up a link to this thing and see how many people choose that over the old one before you make a big mistake and piss off your readers.

Sheepdog wrote:Mel and Taylor,You two were among the first to be a part of the M* Diehards. I came in just a few months later than you.. Why did you agree to stop the link.? I HATE THE CHANGE. Okay, I am screaming.

I would have liked to have had an advance notice of this. But, who am I? Just someone who has been around here for almost 10 years. Yes, I had a different monicre over there. I changed to Sheepdog only for security.

Yes, I know, this is not a democratic forum.,.......,,,.....Jim

Hi Jim:

It was determined that, with so many great resources available to the forum members that weren't being utilized, including the new Bogleheads Wiki, we needed space to provide links for them. And, with the old layout, it was felt that the page space wasn't being used to the investors/members best advantage. The new layout provided space for those valuable resource links (they're all in the left-hand column and more will probably be added later).

To illustrate the poor use of the available space, at one point in time when I checked, here are the stats I saw:

633 new posts over 117 conversations in the last day on the Bogleheads forum. However, only 7 of those 117 conversations showed up on the first page, since this forum only had half the page, and many of the post titles and information ran 2-3 lines deep.

Conversely, I looked at the new beta version of the bogleheads.org homepage, and it displayed 17 threads on the first screen (2.5 times as many) PLUS all the good links in the left hand column. Definitely a more effective use of the available space.

On the other hand, at the same time, the M* forum had 62 posts on 15 threads, and yet with less than 10% of our forum's posts, the right hand side took up 50% of our front page. So there was lots of empty, wasted space on the right hand side when you scrolled down.

IMO, we're definitely making the right move for the future of the Bogleheads forum and for the investors who visit this site. I feel that the change means that everyone who visits our forum will be better served and will have an opportunity to become a more informed investor as a result. Otherwise, Taylor and I wouldn't have approved it. After all, we've spent the last 10 years making nearly 46,000 combined posts in an attempt to to help investors, so that's obviously our focus and our mission, and that hasn't and won't change.

Kurmudjon wrote:I tried to respond using Firefox and it simply directed me to the forum index. I am now using IE6 and I can get the screen where I can post a reply. I'm sure this will be fixed soon.

Posting this using Firefox so can assume its fixed.

Nope. It's not fixed. Very annoying. White background also very annoying. Fill that space to the right with something. I certainly didn't mind using it for the M* threads. I have a wide screen laptop so I still see about 6 inches of blank and still have to scroll a long way to see all the Boglehead threads. I would also appreciate you making the link to the other forum more prominent or possibly even putting them BELOW the boglehead threads. Better on the same page than having to link, even if you have to scroll.

I guess change is inevitable. However, the pink background is hard on my old eyes. Can it be changed to blue?

Not sure if anyone else has mentioned this or not. The "reply" button at the bottom and the "quote" buttons don't work for me. They take me to a page that lists the different forums rather than a reply box.

Another glitch I suppose is related to this change - when I get a reply notification in my personal email, it used to go to the page and then jump down to the new posts. Now, just goes to the top. Sure hope that comes back because it was a GREAT feature.

1) I agree that Bogleheads outgrew M* and don't really regret the loss.

2) I agree, however, with EmergDoc that the whole "6 inches of white space on the right" is not what one would term "more efficient"

3) I also did get on this thread thru diehards.org but was redirected to the forum index when I clicked "post reply". I'm using IE7.

4 and most importantly) My gratitude for always trying to improve this site. Not everyone is going to agree on the best way to do that, but I think the overall trend is vastly in the right direction. THANKS

If you're counting, count me among those disappointed with the change. It seems that all of the new links were already available. Besides those links, I don't see how one column of posts is better than two. You still have scroll - you just get fewer posts per line.

Yes you can still access the M* forum through the link, but stripping the titles of them out and posting them next to Bogleheads posts was a real service I'm going to miss. I can't help but think that fewer Bogleheads are going to keep an eye out for newbies over there at M*, and point the way for them. And weren't just about all of us newbies over there at one point?

I agree that M* was dying. M* charged $5 for membership, this forum does not. It's also way less confusing for new users if only one forum is offered.

However, if you're going to demote M* to a link, I would highly suggest you create a true "off-topic" again. A lot of people may want to discuss things with people that they enjoy talking to regarding financial matters. I believe most of us are adult enough to keep our off-topic conversations appropriate.

WRT the wiki, I'm a little afraid it may reflect a good bit of group think and/or face contentious editing, but I do think it could be an interesting primer to investing. Perhaps you can come up with some good ways to get it lranked highly on Google searches so it acts as a gateway.

Mel Lindauer wrote:...yet with less than 10% of our forum's posts, the right hand side took up 50% of our front page. So there was lots of empty, wasted space on the right hand side when you scrolled down.

As opposed to now where the entire RHS is wasted space, instead of just the first 10-15 posts worth of M* threads which were somewhat interesting.

Don't get me wrong - I've got a slight preference for keeping M* but I have a strong preference for a readable layout. Two columns was a great format; there were a few posts with long titles but you could almost always tell from the first 80 characters or so and we don't really want people to be encouraged to use long rambling titles do we?

Tell you what - just let me know when you Admin's are done screwing around and I'll just hack together my own page that grabs the thread titles and puts them back in a reasonable arrangement like they were before. Or the webmaster could put back the old layout as

xerty24 wrote:Don't get me wrong - I've got a slight preference for keeping M* but I have a strong preference for a readable layout. Two columns was a great format; there were a few posts with long titles but you could almost always tell from the first 80 characters or so and we don't really want people to be encouraged to use long rambling titles do we?

You seem to be forgetting the that two column layout required a minimum of two lines per post. Compared with the previous version, the number of posts displayed per page is exactly the same until you get to the where the M* posts ended on the old version, i.e., one post per line (new) versus on post every two lines in each column (old) = 2 posts/2 lines = 1 post per line. From that point on the new version displays twice as many posts per page, 1 post/line versus 1 post/2 lines.

xerty24 wrote:Tell you what - just let me know when you Admin's are done screwing around and I'll just hack together my own page that grabs the thread titles and puts them back in a reasonable arrangement like they were before.

Be my guest, that's how I started. If I see something good I may even borrow it.

sscritic wrote:And by the way, is the bold 0 replies supposed to highlight that the question is not worthy of a response? [sarcasm alert]

Marking posts with 0 replies was suggested by some of the Advisory Panel members who make a conscious attempt to reply to posts that have not received any responses. Of course whether you scoff at or help out on such posts is entirely up to you.

diasurfer wrote:If you're counting, count me among those disappointed with the change. It seems that all of the new links were already available. Besides those links, I don't see how one column of posts is better than two. You still have scroll - you just get fewer posts per line.

No you don't. You get nearly twice as many posts per line. Take a typical day, with 600 posts on this forum and 40 on M*. Since there were two lines per post on the old format, it took 1200 lines to display those 640 posts or .533 posts per line. In the new format it takes 600 lines to display 600 posts or 1 post per line, nearly double the old density.

diasurfer wrote:If you're counting, count me among those disappointed with the change. It seems that all of the new links were already available. Besides those links, I don't see how one column of posts is better than two. You still have scroll - you just get fewer posts per line.

No you don't. You get nearly twice as many posts per line. Take a typical day, with 600 posts on this forum and 40 on M*. Since there were two lines per post on the old format, it took 1200 lines to display those 640 posts or .533 posts per line. In the new format it takes 600 lines to display 600 posts or 1 post per line, nearly double the old density.

Well I guess I never noticed the old posts with long titles wrapping. Scrolling the page never bothered me anyway. It seems like there's lot of blank space now. I liked monitoring the old site with that space.

Of course it's your site and you can do with it as you see fit. I'm happy to keep reading. I just liked the old format better. And it was easier on the eyes, and these eyes aren't that old. thanks for the site either way.

I noticed the change yesterday and thought something was broken at first.

It was not until this morning that I noticed the post by Petro and a few others on the original M* forum that something had officially changed.

I did like the ability to quickly view post on both forums, and liked reading and replying to either side from one starting point.

It will take some time to get used to this change, but I will adapt.

One complaint about the initial web page. It appears to be designed for 800x600 resolution.

My resolution of choice is 1152x864 and when you crank up that first page diehards.org at a higher resolution, you do have a huge amount of blank (totally unused) space on the right half of the display.

That is not very efficient use of space and 800x600 resolution is really outdated at this point. In fact with most video cards/computer moniters 800x600 is the lowest resolution that you can select (if you can still go that low).

Anyone with a recent PC Workstation, and Flat Panel monitor are going to be running a much higher resolution. (I have a Dell Ultra Sharp 20" Flat Panel). Flat Panels really need to run at much higher resolution to give the user the benefit of the sharper (easier on the eyes) display.

I would suggest that the initial page be designed for at least 1024x768 resolution. Users with older equipment running 800x600 can do like they have to do on most any other website designed for higher resolutions (use the scroll bar at the bottom to move right-left).

I also have the problem where I can see a post on the initial page, open it, but can not reply to it. When I click reply it takes me to the forum listing again.

I do like some of the links I can get to now on the new page, but there is a huge amount of waisted space when you are running a higher resolution.

Yeah, when I post reply, it takes me to the main index? Have to find the post again by browsing various categories in order to reply. After this one, I'm not going to do that.

I really really miss the time stamp of last reply on the thread list. That was my best way to know which threads to look at (since my last visit).

And for me, each thread has a little lower case letter at the left in the bullet position. What is that supposed to do?

I guess, though, without the Morningstar threads on the right column, there is no reason to go to the diehards.org page (where I have been going) at all. I'll just bookmark the phpBB itself, and do a "since your last visit" search. Too bad, though.

The link is not stopped. You will find a direct link to the Diehards Forum in the left margin. Alex gave the reasons for the change in his reply, above.

Best wishes.Taylor

I can't find a link to the Diehard. org on the left what is it under?

Kathyet

PS. found it, I also found I needed to log in on both sites, but this one I needed to do twice there are a few things that need to be tweaked I quess. I will miss having each site side by side it won't be the same. It will take some getting used to.

Last edited by kathyet on Sun Jun 01, 2008 7:29 am, edited 1 time in total.

The link is not stopped. You will find a direct link to the Diehards Forum in the left margin. Alex gave the reasons for the change in his reply, above.

Best wishes.Taylor

I can't find a link to the Diehard. org on the left what is it under?

Kathyet

PS. found it, I also found I needed to log in on both sites, but this one I needed to do twice there are a few things that need to be tweaked I quess. I will miss having each site side by side it won't be the same. It will take some getting used to.

It's the wnd to last link in the far left column, and says "Original M* forum"

After the weeks of scrum that followed the original M* forum change, I will vow not to make any comments about this site whatsoever. It's fine by me. Probably better, overall. Adapt we will--this site is absolutely worth it.

"By singing in harmony from the same page of the same investing hymnal, the Diehards drown out market noise."
|
| --Jason Zweig, quoted in The Bogleheads' Guide to Investing

Definitely an improvement overall. But I agree with one of the above posts re: the time stamping for the last reply. I really miss this small piece of info - didn't realize how useful it was until it disappeared. Also, re: background color, fonts, point sizes and any other formating issues - wouldn't much of this be obviated by simply including whatever default formating code is already being used within the forum pages?

Tramper Al wrote:Yeah, when I post reply, it takes me to the main index? Have to find the post again by browsing various categories in order to reply. After this one, I'm not going to do that.

Alex, are you watching? That's a bug. An annoying one, but obviously a bug. I haven't got it completely characterized, but it definitely helps if you log in twice, once at Diehards and once at Bogleheads. That is, first go to www.diehards.org and be sure you're logged in there; if you are, as long as you're there anyway, you might as well log out then log in again, and of course check the "keep me logged in" checkbox.

It appears that the DNS updates have now propogated widely so I've reconfigured the server to redirect requests for the old domain, www.diehards.org, to the new doman www.bogleheads.org. As far as I know, this completes the transistion of the configuration so all links and bookmarks that are still supported should be functional.

This should eliminate most of the confusion regarding logins, etc..

I believe that there are still going to be a few details with the forum configuration to resolve but I'm looking at that now. I would appreciate either a post or a PM if you spot something that's amiss. Note, a careful, thorough description of the problem would be most helpful.

sscritic wrote:It is much easier to read information in several columns instead of a single column with a jagged edge, some line covering less than 1/3 of the longest. In short, the new front page in next to unreadable. The color choices don't help.

I thought it was just me, so I wasn't going to bring it up. However, the wideness of the single column is also difficult for me to read. Even though the old way did take 2 lines, it was much easier for me to read. With this format, I have to work at it rather than just read it. And, as I mentioned above, I think the pink is adding to the strain.

Sorry, don't want to complain when I know you are trying to make things better, but scrolling up and down was not a problem for me. The way it is not is a problem for me.